Keep in mind DM's make houserules, players who make their own are called cheaters.

Generally when a DM makes a houserule, it is so the game runs smoother, or in a more enjoyable manner.

If the DM is a poor DM, the rules may be made to make the players, or a specific player have less fun, but thats generally not the case.

When a DM changes a rule, in order to make the game run smoother, it generally is in a manner that limits an action that group has deemed overpowered, and is limiting to the players so that they are less powerful. That is almost the opposite of cheating to come out on top.

A common houserule is to limit druids by not letting them into the Planar Shepard PrC which is commonly deemed overpowered. (because it lets your team take 10 actions to the enemies 1) It is very powerful, and so many DM's limit player access to it. If this were done in order to let the players come out ontop, the DM would make it so that every player was required to take this class, not the other way around.

You seem new, so I will warn you that you might want to explain what exactly about house rules you dislike, otherwise you are going to be accused of stiring up trouble, and then possibly banned.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk" " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk" "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst" "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"

House rules are best used to clarify existing conflicts in the rules as published. This includes limiting or restricting access to undesirable or "overpowered" material (many 3rd-party publishers, or d20 Modern in a standard D&D/d20 Fantasy game, for example), copying certain sections from the SRD and placing appropriate emphasis or links to errata, and so on.

Also, with the 3.0 and 3.5 conversions and massive amounts of conflict, I made a list of general rulings on the entire subject.

Lastly, all house rules should always be made available to players. At the very least, inform them that there are house rules in use that may conflict with the Rules As Written.

I'm ok with house rules. What does bother me is house rules for a game thats not out yet.

You wouldn't walk into a five-star resturaunt, order a meal, then go back into the kitchen to make suggestions of what to add to the chef after sampling a few ingreditants, would you?

I can't see why people want to come up with modifications for a product that isn't even released yet, heaven forbidd they see the rule book first and then decide whether they want or need to make a house-rule.

I guess as a maker of games myself it kind of strikes me as a "how dare you question the creator's rules?" kinda thing. I trust when some-one comes up with a game they have the good sense to get everything right, and if changes need to be made the makers will fix them, as they know best, as they came up with the rules in the first ****ing place!

So, in conclusion, play how you want to play. If you want to make a house rule, thats cool and have every right to, but it'd be nice to be patient and look at the rules before up and declaring changes that should be made.

Don't forget that house rules are also be used to set the flavor of a campaign, or a particular DM's world. They are also used to adapt rules to a particular groups style of play. Everyone doesn't like or dislike the same things, it is impossible to please everyone, and the rules shouldn't try to. House rules are for that.

I'm ok with house rules. What does bother me is house rules for a game thats not out yet.

You wouldn't walk into a five-star resturaunt, order a meal, then go back into the kitchen to make suggestions of what to add to the chef after sampling a few ingreditants, would you?

I can't see why people want to come up with modifications for a product that isn't even released yet, heaven forbidd they see the rule book first and then decide whether they want or need to make a house-rule.

I guess as a maker of games myself it kind of strikes me as a "how dare you question the creator's rules?" kinda thing. I trust when some-one comes up with a game they have the good sense to get everything right, and if changes need to be made the makers will fix them, as they know best, as they came up with the rules in the first ****ing place!

So, in conclusion, play how you want to play. If you want to make a house rule, thats cool and have every right to, but it'd be nice to be patient and look at the rules before up and declaring changes that should be made.

Except, that is completely ignoring the history of the game in question. D&D grew out of what was essentially a few different sets of house rules for Chainmail (Rules for Medieval Miniatures). Houserules are a huge part of the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons, and to play without them is almost more disrespectful to the game than to overuse them is... almost.

i see wat u mean this might just mean that my dm sucks because he would let other peps be drow but not me

Thats not a houserule. "Bill here cant play drow anymore, everyone else can though" is called picking on a player, and generally falls into the "Being a jerk" catagory of actions. It is very similar to actions like
- calling someone a poopy head
- stealing a juice box
- not shareing
- and many other problems that arise commonly in kindergarden.

*this only applies if you have not done something the groups deems "stupid" while playing a drow, and thus they have decided for the groups enjoyment you are banned from the race.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk" " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk" "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst" "I'd recommend no one listed to Krusk's opinions about what games to play"